By Ter Manyang Gatwech
Introduction.
Dr. Riek Machar Teny occupies one of the most complicated positions in the political history of South Sudan. For decades, his name has been associated with both political struggle and peace negotiations. He has served as a senior political leader, vice president, opposition leader and principal participant in several attempts to end armed conflict. His journey illustrates the extraordinary difficulties of pursuing political power and peace in a country where unresolved grievances, ethnic divisions, armed groups and weak institutions have repeatedly undermined political settlements.
Machar’s political fortunes have risen and fallen with remarkable frequency. At different moments, he has been a powerful figure within the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), a challenger to President Salva Kiir, a leader of the SPLM in Opposition (SPLM-IO), a participant in transitional governments and an exile. His experience therefore provides more than a biography of one politician. It offers a window into the broader difficulties of transforming a liberation movement into a functioning democratic state.
The fortunes of a political survivor
Machar’s rise cannot be separated from the history of the South Sudanese liberation struggle. His political career developed within the broader struggle against successive governments in Khartoum and later within the internal political contestation of the SPLM. After South Sudan achieved independence in 2011, he became vice president under President Salva Kiir.
The relationship between the two leaders eventually deteriorated. In December 2013, Kiir dismissed Machar as vice president amid a political crisis, while Kiir accused Machar of attempting a coup. Machar denied the allegation. The political confrontation was followed by devastating violence and the outbreak of civil war. The conflict produced enormous humanitarian consequences, human rights gross violations, including mass displacement and loss of life.
Machar subsequently became the principal political leader of the armed opposition. His position gave him substantial influence in negotiations, but it also placed him at the centre of the conflict. His political fortunes were consequently tied to the success or failure of peace initiatives.
One of his most important political fortunes was his continued relevance to negotiations. Despite periods of exile and military confrontation, Machar remained a central party to international and regional efforts to resolve the conflict. The 2015 peace agreement brought him back to Juba as 1st vice president, but the arrangement collapsed after renewed fighting in July 2016, forcing him into exile again.
The experience demonstrated one of the fundamental problems of South Sudan’s peace process: signing an agreement is not the same thing as creating the political, security and institutional conditions necessary for its implementation.
The fortune of the 2018 peace agreement
Perhaps the most significant diplomatic chapter in Dr. Riek Machar’s political career was the revitalization of the South Sudan peace process in 2018. Following intensive negotiations involving regional leaders, stakeholders, President Salva Kiir, Dr. Machar, and other opposition groups, the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) was signed in September 12th, 2018 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The agreement aimed to end years of conflict, establish a power-sharing government, and create a roadmap for political reforms and national reconciliation.
For Machar, the agreement marked a major political comeback. After several years in exile following the collapse of the 2015 peace deal and the violence of July 2016, he returned to the center of national politics. In February 2020, he was sworn in as First Vice President under the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (RTNoNU) in Juba.
However, some of Machar’s supporters viewed his return to Juba as a significant “political gamble”. They argued that he accepted compromises on key security arrangements before returning and that many provisions relating to the unification of forces and security guarantees remained incomplete. Nevertheless, Machar appeared to prioritize the continuation of the peace process over prolonged political deadlock.
This period demonstrated an important lesson about peacebuilding: former enemies may need to become partners if a negotiated settlement is to succeed. Yet while the agreement created opportunities for peace, its implementation faced persistent challenges. Delays in security reforms, governance arrangements, institutional restructuring, and the integration of armed forces weakened public confidence. Consequently, the true test of the agreement was not its signing but whether it could build lasting trust among political actors and deliver meaningful peace dividends to ordinary South Sudanese citizens.
The Misfortunes of Unresolved Political Competition
Machar’s political experience demonstrates the dangers of a peace process that remains heavily dependent on political personalities rather than strong institutions. Following the implementation of the Revitalized Peace Agreement, the SPLM-IO was allocated key government positions, including the Ministry of Petroleum. While these appointments were viewed as important gains for the opposition, some supporters believed that parts of the movement became increasingly focused on the benefits of political office while paying insufficient attention to long-term political and security challenges. Critics argued that greater strategic planning and vigilance were necessary to safeguard the movement’s interests and ensure the full implementation of the peace agreement.
The rivalry between Machar and President Salva Kiir continued to shape South Sudan’s political landscape. Their relationship moved repeatedly between confrontation, negotiation, power-sharing, and renewed tension, creating uncertainty within national institutions. In March 2025, Machar’s placement under house arrest shocked many South Sudanese and highlighted the fragility of the political settlement established under the 2018 peace agreement.
The lesson is that durable peace requires more than agreements between political leaders. It requires strong institutions capable of managing political disagreements without allowing competition for power to evolve into security crises or armed conflict. Furthermore, responsibility for the success or failure of peace implementation cannot be attributed to Machar alone. President Kiir, opposition groups, military commanders, regional actors, mediators, and international partners have all played significant roles in shaping the trajectory of South Sudan’s peace process. Ultimately, sustainable peace depends on institutions that are stronger than individual political rivalries.
A New and Difficult Chapter
Machar’s political fortunes took another dramatic turn in 2025 when he was placed under house arrest amid escalating tensions and violence in Upper Nile State. His detention triggered concern among regional and international stakeholders, including the United Nations, the African Union (AU), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), foreign embassies, South Sudanese civil society organizations, human rights defenders, and policy analysts, all of whom called for restraint and full implementation of the Revitalized Peace Agreement. In September 2025, authorities charged Machar and several associates with serious offenses linked to the Nasir violence. His supporters dispute the allegations, while the government maintains that the legal process addresses grave security concerns. The developments have placed significant strain on the peace process and exposed the fragility of South Sudan’s political settlement. Meanwhile, many activists and community leaders reported increased intimidation and arrests during this period, reflecting the shrinking civic and political space in the country.
Division within SPLM-IO/A
One of the significant political consequences of Dr. Riek Machar’s house arrest and ongoing legal challenges has been the growing division within the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army in Opposition (SPLM-IO/A). The uncertainty surrounding his political future has created internal disagreements over leadership succession and the direction of the movement.
Different factions within the SPLM-IO/A have expressed varying views regarding who should provide leadership during Machar’s absence. While some members remain loyal to Machar and insist that he remains the legitimate chairman of the movement, others have advocated for alternative leadership arrangements to ensure continuity of political activities and participation in the peace process.
These divisions highlight a broader challenge facing many political movements in South Sudan: the tendency to rely heavily on individual leaders rather than strong and sustainable institutions. The debate within the SPLM-IO/A is not only about who should lead the organization, but also about how the movement can preserve and advance its vision, mission, and political objectives.
Supporters of the SPLM-IO/A have traditionally argued that their movement seeks democratic reforms, accountable governance, improved its objectives, mission, vision, and the creation of a stable and peaceful South Sudan. The current divisions therefore raise important questions about the movement’s ability to remain united and effective during a period of political uncertainty.
What does Machar’s experience teach South Sudan?
Machar’s experience offers several lessons for the country’s search for durable peace.
First, peace agreements must be implemented, not merely signed. South Sudan has experienced repeated agreements whose political promises proved easier to negotiate than to implement. The R-ARCSS created structures for power-sharing and institutional reform, but delays and disagreements weakened confidence in the process.
Second, political competition must be separated from military confrontation. A democratic state must provide mechanisms through which leaders can compete, disagree and even lose political power without resorting to armed mobilization.
Third, peace cannot depend permanently on two individuals. The relationship between Kiir and Machar has been central to South Sudan’s politics, but sustainable peace requires institutions that survive changes in leadership. Parliament, courts, security institutions, political parties, civil society and local communities all have roles to play.
Fourth, justice and peace must be carefully balanced. Serious allegations of violence should not simply be ignored because a person is a political leader. At the same time, justice processes must command public confidence, respect due process and avoid becoming instruments of political exclusion. Human Rights Watch has specifically called for fair and public trials meeting international standards in the cases involving Machar and other opposition figures.
Finally, ordinary South Sudanese citizens must remain at the centre of the peace process. Political elites may negotiate positions, ministries and military arrangements, but citizens bear the consequences when agreements collapse. Durable peace should therefore be measured not only by whether political leaders share government offices, but by whether people can live safely, return home, educate their children, farm, trade and participate in political life without fear.
Conclusion
Dr. Riek Machar Teny’s political journey is a story of extraordinary fortunes and painful misfortunes. Throughout decades of political struggle, he has moved from government to opposition, from war to negotiation, from exile back to government, and more recently into a serious legal and political confrontation with the state. Few leaders in South Sudan’s history have experienced such dramatic shifts in political influence and responsibility.
His experience reflects the unfinished political story of South Sudan itself. The country’s challenges cannot be reduced to one leader, one ethnic community, or one political party. Rather, they are rooted in broader questions of governance, political competition, security sector reform, justice, reconciliation, and the building of national institutions capable of managing political differences peacefully.
The significance of Machar’s long political struggle lies not only in his personal fortunes but also in what it reveals about the wider challenges of achieving durable peace in South Sudan. His repeated involvement in peace negotiations demonstrates that dialogue remains essential, even among deeply divided rivals. At the same time, the repeated delays and shortcomings in implementing peace agreements highlight the need for stronger institutions and sustained political commitment from all stakeholders.
The history of South Sudan shows that peace agreements can stop violence temporarily without necessarily addressing the underlying political and governance challenges that drive conflict. Machar’s experiences offer a valuable case study of this reality. They demonstrate both the opportunities and limitations of negotiated settlements in a society seeking lasting peace and stability.
Ultimately, the future of South Sudan will not be determined solely by the political fortunes of Dr. Riek Machar, President Salva Kiir, or any other individual leader. The true measure of success will be the country’s ability to establish democratic institutions, uphold the rule of law, protect fundamental freedoms, and create a political culture in which disagreements are resolved through dialogue rather than violence.
If South Sudan succeeds in building such institutions, the struggles, sacrifices, and lessons of leaders like Dr. Machar will become an important chapter in the nation’s journey toward peace, stability, national unity, and reconciliation.
About the Author: Ter Manyang Gatwech is a gender scholar, human rights defender, peacebuilding advocate, and policy analyst focusing on South Sudan (Email: termanyang24@gmail.com). The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The National Review.
